You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
28 points

Algae does it for free all the time. Physically trying to capture carbon dioxide is dumbassery. We need more investment in algae production.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Algae doesn’t capture it for long. Trees do it for longer but not long enough to be more then a speed bump. Unless we start dumping algae and trees into giant pits and sealing them up three is no long term carbon capture.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Biochar (created in a retort) is how you sustainably sequester carbon for the long-term using trees (and similar biomass).

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Good point. I’m curious how the total amount of energy and resources utilized to grow, harvest, and char algae compares to direct CO2 removal. Ultimately, I just want something that works without generating another issue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Algae doesn’t capture it for long.

Not true, it depends on how it’s contained. Drying algae and removing the water will stop it from decomposing. Think of seaweed used for sushi except ground up into a very dense powder. Algae will decompose if left hydrated in the sun though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Where you getting the energy to capture and dry algae that results in a total positive capture?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Techbros were pitching how we’d invent self replicating carbon capture nano machines in the future

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s so annoying about motorsports in recent years. Commentators are tasked by the race series owners to hype up that BS. Researching the technology is fine. Scientists may find ways to capture carbon at a better rate at acceptable energy cost but shouting that an inefficient combustion engine is somehow better for the environment than EV because “batteries bad, carbon capture great” is just stupid.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

It could be beneficial for densely populated areas, though. Because you have predictable airflow and low-hanging regions to implement physical capture and sequestering. We can do more than one thing at a time and targeted approaches combined with generalized approaches will yield faster results.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

In order for that we need more renewable energy, otherwise we’re just burning fossil fuel, producing carbon dioxide, and then capturing it. Solar, wind, algae biofuel, renewable diesel, green hydrogen, etc. We have to be careful how we use energy otherwise we’re just producing carbon dioxide to capture carbon dioxide.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Looks at US corn production for ethanol 👀

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

People keep complaining that solar and wind give us “too much electricity at the wrong time”, causing power prices to go negative (as if this is a problem). Having a beneficial process like co2 removal that you can do at any time of day (the co2 isn’t going anywhere) that would soak up all that energy seems like a win win.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 17K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 555K

    Comments